Titleist Tees Up Lawsuit Against Parody Clothier Because Golf Doesn't Have A Sense Of Humor
from the fore! dept
Back in the more innocent era of the early 2010s, you may recall that we discussed a series of delightful trademark disputes between clothier North Face and a couple of guys who started a business first called South Butt (later changed to Butt Face). In those series of posts, we discussed two conflicting facts: trademark lawsuits against parody operators such as this are extremely hard to win in court... except that those same lawsuits are crazy expensive to fight, so the parody operators typically just cave and settle. It's one of those corners of the law in which the very framework of the legal system virtually ensures that the proper legal conclusion is never reached. Yay.
It seems that North Face's peers in the clothing industry share its disdain for these parody companies. Titleist, for instance, recently filed a trademark and dilution lawsuit against a company called I Made Bogey, suggesting that the following example of its product both will confuse the public as to its origins and will tarnish Titleist's reputation.
Now, if you want to make the point that the hats and other items with this same branding aren't funny, go ahead. I'm right there with you. It's not even particularly clever. That said, it's also not the case that anyone is going to view this stuff as anything other than what it actually is: a parody of the notably poshly-presented golf brand. In fact, the joke only works, insofar as it does at all, if a person realizes that the parody pokes fun at the polite and often Waspy culture of golf. In other words, none of this is a thing were it not easily differentiated from Titleist's brand. For that very reason, attacks on parody like this have a heavy legal load to tow up a large mountain of precedent.
In the suit, Titleist claims both trademark infringement and dilution. For dilution to stick, it must show that I Made Bogey’s hats tarnish Titleist’s reputation or blurs its fame. For trademark infringement, however, Titleist must show that consumers would be confused by the two logos. “They would have to show that people would think Titleist is making hats” with the sexually explicit misspelling, said Tobin, the attorney. And that would be pretty difficult, she said.
And, yet, despite all of that, conventional wisdom suggests that this will all be settled out of court before the lawsuit progresses much further. The cost to fight this fight is likely to be too much for I Made Bogey to shoulder.
That doesn’t mean I Made Bogey is necessarily going to prevail, though. Trademark suits are expensive to defend, and there’s no guarantee the maker of Titties hats will come out on top. If you want a lewd golf hat, act sooner rather than later.
And, whatever your opinion of I Made Bogey's products, that's too bad. Taste is not really at issue when it comes to protecting parody, an important form of speech. Defenders of free speech need to be able to keep their spines when opportunities to defend speech they don't like arise. This is certainly one of those times. Abusing trademark law and playing pretend about public confusion to silence offensive speech is an action without any virtue.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Trademark prohibits some speech. (I cringe expecting even that to be just trivially contradicted, though it's the topic theme!)
Hole in one, which is par for me. Next case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademark prohibits some speech. (I cringe expecting even that to be just trivially contradicted, though it's the topic theme!)
By your logic, all parodies of existing trademarks must be outlawed, as they all depend on prior association with and “dilution” of an existing trademark. That sounds like a hell of a lot of unconstitutional prior restraint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trademark prohibits some speech. (I cringe expecting even that to be just trivially contradicted, though it's the topic theme!)
Mostly just looks like trying to make a buck off of someone else good name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The quality of the parody, such as it is, does not negate the fact that it is a parody. And unless Titleist can prove that this parody actually harms or dilutes the Titleist brand (which did not seem likely before Titleist filed the lawsuit and gave the parody a bunch of attention it did not have before), the company has no basis for blocking the parody.
But Titleist will win anyway because it has the resources to win a war of attrition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior restraint v subsequent punishment [was Re: Re: Trademark prohibits some speech...]
Why would it be —your word— “like” a prior restraint?
Alexander v United States (1993)
(Emphasis added.)
Why are you saying that an expansive theory of trademark dilution —going so far as to ban all parody— why are you saying that sounds “like” a prior restraint?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior restraint v subsequent punishment [was Re: Re: Trademark prohibits some speech...]
As to why he makes that connection, your quote while applicable, fails to address anything applicable. Such a ban as described by the AC would be a requirement to get approval for parody from the trademark owner (via the power of the government) - classic Prior Restraint. And as parody is a legally recognized form of Trademark fair use, that restriction would be considered unconstitutional. Hence, unconstitutional prior restraint. I'm sure a lawyer could write it up better, but that's the core.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess that settles it.
Looks like I'll be switching golf brands. Maybe Pinnacle or Callaway Golf would appreciate a new customer who loses 24-36 balls per outing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're just pissed.
Apparently Titleist doesn't have the balls to let someone make fun of them. Yeah, I did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also think it also shows a desire for enrichment from the original trademark more than to make any grand parody statement. The same hat without the Titlist trademark branding wouldn't be much more than another semi-smutty piece of Americana. With the Trademark, it appears to be mostly an infringing piece of semi-smutty Americana.
I also think Mr Stone is right for once, Titlist likely has very deep pockets and can litigate this one into the ground and then 6 feet further under. There can't be enough money in making novelty smutty hats to pay for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Especially for the willfully blind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Go ahead. Just sit down over here and talk clearly for the cameras and microphones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Probably what's plainly stated in the article, you idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
*Selective Reading Disorder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They are parodying the Titleist logo by using the same font and overall design of the original logo to pass on a crude message (“titties”) which coincidentally contrasts with the “stuffy white guy game” image associated with golf (and, by extension, the Titleist brand). The quality of the parody does not change the fact that it is a parody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's when we joke about you n0ot being able to recognize titties even if they are stuck to your face?
Ahem. Full of bs as always. Sadly they will probably steer away from the costs of such litigation putting once again IP laws in the realm of pure censorship. Win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apt Popehat article: The First Amendment Protects Satire Even When Reckless, Stupid, Or Ideology-Addled People Fall For It
Technically that's about satire, not parody, and the two things are legally distinct. But for the purposes of defining "obvious", the law is the same for both.
Here are a couple that refer specifically to parody:
Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor: Ashamed To Be Called A Prostitute, But Proud To Be A Thug
Today In Silly Censorious Threats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for full of BS, consider this: These are the sorts of things that would be argued in court. I am sure that a judge would be more than willing to hear both sides of the argument, after all of the other bases have been touched on the way to the court room. Landing in court, it would still be a crap shoot, with the legal wait of the system generally sitting on the side of the trademark holder. Would you want to be the defendant here? Do you really think the defendant is in a 100% secure position, such that any and all costs related to going to court are assured to be covered?
I don't think so. I think it would be a risk because it's not a slam dunk legally. No BS, just asking the obvious questions rather than just swallowing the story whole without digesting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But now I'm aware of Titlist's logo and how stupid, unimaginative and thin skinned they are.
Now I'll only ever see Tit List in their logo.
This is the Streisand effect in action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, make sure a judge is overseeing the case (not a jury) and just say that what you did isn't illegal.
What happens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh-oh. Nobody show them that Beavis and Butt-Head episode -- I think it was called Mr. Anderson's Balls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Location Location Location
[ link to this | view in chronology ]